Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, he belongs in the same category as old earth creationists, who agree
that the earth may be billions of years old. Young earth creationists
rightly believe that the earth is just a few thousand years old.

I think he meant 'in the same category' as in equally bat droppings crazy as each other.

btw you just redefined 'rightly' to mean 'wrongly and in the face of overwhelming evidence'.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, I am saying I don't know what you mean, and don't think you know what you mean.

The way you tell that, is because that's what I said.

I didn't say I didn't want to know what you mean, the way you tell that is because I didn't
type I don't want to know what you mean.

It might be simpler if you read what I actually type and assume I mean it rather than
imagine what I type and get offended by something that isn't there.

I'm not offended. I'm offended that you would think I'd be offended. 😉

I know what you mean. You don't know what I mean, but you can be sure I know what I mean.

Now, If you don't know what I mean when I say the answer to your question is both yes and no, then please just ask me what I mean instead of playing this game of Round Robin.

Nothing is really that complicated. Everything is quite simple.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm not offended. I'm offended that you would think I'd be offended. 😉

I know what you mean. You don't know what I mean, but you can be sure I know what I mean.

Now, If you don't know what I mean when I say the answer to your question is both yes and no, then please just ask me what I mean instead of playing this game of Round Robin.

Nothing is really that complicated. Everything is quite simple.

Or alternatively you could quit obfuscating and just say what you mean, preferably in the first place.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm not offended. I'm offended that you would think I'd be offended. 😉

I know what you mean. You don't know what I mean, but you can be sure I know what I mean.

Now, If you don't know what I mean when I say the answer to your question is both yes and no, then please just ask me what I mean instead of playing this game of Round Robin.

Nothing is really that complicated. Everything is quite simple.

Well I don't know what you mean 😕

Supposing some god exists, the statement such a god (or gods) is omnipotent is either true or (and that's an exclusive or) the statement this god (or gods) is omnipotent is false; it cannot be both.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Or alternatively you could quit obfuscating and just say what you mean, preferably in the first place.

That would be too easy. You gotta really wanna know.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well I don't know what you mean 😕

Supposing some god exists, the statement such a god (or gods) is omnipotent is either true or (and that's an exclusive or) the statement this god (or gods) is omnipotent is false; it cannot be both.

Imagine that there is a (g)God and nothing else. Then (g)God created all that exists. Maybe there's more that (g)God can create. Maybe everything that can be created is already created and there's nothing else that can be created.

What attribute(s) would that (g)God have? Maybe omniscience? But how would we know? We don't. We would have to be omniscient to know whether or not (g)God was omniscient. The only way we could know whether (g)God was omniscient or not would be for (g)God to tell us.

Originally posted by josephw
Imagine that there is a (g)God and nothing else. Then (g)God created all that exists. Maybe there's more that (g)God can create. Maybe everything that can be created is already created and there's nothing else that can be created.

What attribute(s) would that (g)God have? Maybe omniscience? But how would we know? We don't. We would have to be omniscient t ...[text shortened]... e only way we could know whether (g)God was omniscient or not would be for (g)God to tell us.

So your big thing you were building up to is you don't know.
Great, we knew that to kick off with.

However many theists claim/have claimed that their god has certain attributes.
Like omnipotence.

The point of the argument is to show that actually some attributes are logically contradictory
and thus a god concept that includes them must be false.


However if you admit you don't and can't know what god's attributes are, then how can
you claim to know anything about god, including what god does or does not want us to
do, or act like?

Originally posted by josephw
Imagine that there is a (g)God and nothing else. Then (g)God created all that exists. Maybe there's more that (g)God can create. Maybe everything that can be created is already created and there's nothing else that can be created.

What attribute(s) would that (g)God have? Maybe omniscience? But how would we know? We don't. We would have to be omniscient t ...[text shortened]... e only way we could know whether (g)God was omniscient or not would be for (g)God to tell us.

I can't see what you're trying to accomplish with your first paragraph. Whether there is more that can be created is not interesting, and moreover your last sentence in that paragraph is absurd. Indeed taking that to be true implies you would not be anticipating a reply (since the reply is itself the creation of a post that did not and has never existed when you posted that statement).

Getting back to your original statement and dealing with your second paragraph if such a god exists then the proposition "God" is omnipotent has only one truth value regardless of whether we are presently ignorant or not. There really is no way round this, your answer of both yes AND no just doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by Agerg
I can't see what you're trying to accomplish with your first paragraph. Whether there is more that can be created is not interesting, and moreover your last sentence in that paragraph is absurd. Indeed taking that to be true implies you would not be anticipating a reply (since the reply is itself the creation of a post that did not and has never existed when y There really is no way round this, your answer of both yes AND no just doesn't make sense.

googlefudge asked this question:

"Is god infinitely powerful and able to do absolutely anything he wants?"

My answer was, yes and no.

Now you say: "...your answer of both yes AND no just doesn't make sense."

Yes, because God is infinitely powerful and can do anything, and no, God cannot do anything that is out of character for an infinitely powerful God.

Does it make sense to you now? It's like saying God knows everything there is to know, but He doesn't know anything there isn't to know.

Originally posted by googlefudge
So your big thing you were building up to is you don't know.
Great, we knew that to kick off with.

However many theists claim/have claimed that their god has certain attributes.
Like omnipotence.

The point of the argument is to show that actually some attributes are logically contradictory
and thus a god concept that includes them must be false ...[text shortened]... o know anything about god, including what god does or does not want us to
do, or act like?

It's not a question of whether I know everything there is to know about God. Who does?

The idea is to know God. Personally.

Originally posted by josephw
googlefudge asked this question:

[b]"Is god infinitely powerful and able to do absolutely anything he wants?"

My answer was, yes and no.

Now you say: "...your answer of both yes AND no just doesn't make sense."

Yes, because God is infinitely powerful and can do anything, and no, God cannot do anything that is out of character for an in ...[text shortened]... God knows everything there is to know, but He doesn't know anything there isn't to know.[/b]

Yes, because God is infinitely powerful and can do anything, and no, God cannot do anything that is out of character for an infinitely powerful God.
This line contains a contradiction.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Yes, because God is infinitely powerful and can do anything, and no, God cannot do anything that is out of character for an infinitely powerful God.
This line contains a contradiction.[/b]

So it may appear. It's a paradox.

Originally posted by josephw
googlefudge asked this question:

[b]"Is god infinitely powerful and able to do absolutely anything he wants?"

My answer was, yes and no.

Now you say: "...your answer of both yes AND no just doesn't make sense."

Yes, because God is infinitely powerful and can do anything, and no, God cannot do anything that is out of character for an in ...[text shortened]... God knows everything there is to know, but He doesn't know anything there isn't to know.[/b]

This is nonsense.

However lets get back to the point I was making, which is that it is possible to put bounds
on what god can or can't be/do by the application of logic.

Have you understood my point that a good defined to be omnipotent,
Where omnipotent means being infinitely powerful and able to do anything it wants,
Can't for logical reasons exist?

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is nonsense.

However lets get back to the point I was making, which is that it is possible to put bounds
on what god can or can't be/do by the application of logic.

Have you understood my point that a good defined to be omnipotent,
Where omnipotent means being infinitely powerful and able to do anything it wants,
Can't for logical reasons exist?

I've read (in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy) something to the effect that the inapplicability of the principles of logic to a subject, stultifies rational thought on that subject. An example of the principles of logic would be excluded middle. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is.

The point here is that one can say that an entity whose attributes entail logical contradiction cannot exist, but the more precise thing to say is that the logical contradictions entailed by its existence stultify rational thought on that entity, at least WRT those attributes. This approach offers a way to understand how people can believe such an entity exists. Basically, they do not concern themselves with the boundaries placed on their thought.

This might be more strongly stated by the theist: Some aspects of God are beyond rational comprehension. All the rational disproofs can possibly achieve, is to demonstrate which aspects they are.

I say this as a non-theist.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Yes, because God is infinitely powerful and can do anything, and no, God cannot do anything that is out of character for an infinitely powerful God.
This line contains a contradiction.[/b]

When the Holy Bible indicates God can not Lie, it actually means He will
not Lie even though He has the power to do so. I think this is the idea
that josephw was trying to make. Do you understand now?